Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Squabble Over Name Ruffles a Web Utopia

Web 2.0, a term that has come to represent the latest incarnation of the Internet, a place where Web sites are more dynamic and interactive, has a certain Internet utopianism at its heart. But that image took a hit last week when a dispute broke out over who was allowed to use the term.

On Wednesday, a lawyer from CMP Media, which works with Tim O'Reilly, the head of O'Reilly Media, to sponsor an annual conference on technology and business, sent a cease-and-desist letter to it@cork, a nonprofit industry group in Ireland that is holding its own Web 2.0 conference next month.

CMP has trademark applications pending in the United States, the European Union and elsewhere that would bar others from using the phrase "Web 2.0" in the titles of conferences and other events.

When Tom Raftery, a member of it@cork and conference organizer, saw the letter on Thursday, he posted it on his blog, tomrafteryit.net. The cease-and-desist action, he said, "is anathema to the whole philosophy of 2.0, which is about sharing."

According to Eric Faurot, a senior vice president at CMP, approval of trademark applications requires a company to take action against other uses as proof that its claims on the term are legitimate. "Not protecting your trademark is a bad business practice. It's that simple." (The Web 2.0 conference organized by CMP and O'Reilly Media started in 2004. About.com, which is owned by The New York Times Company, is a sponsor of the invitation-only event this fall.)

The legal nuances made little difference in the blogosphere. After the cease-and-desist letter was posted, "things went ballistic. Lots of people saw this and were incensed," said Mr. Raftery.

In response to the uproar, CMP and O'Reilly Media swiftly reassessed their position. On Friday, Sara Winge, a vice president for O'Reilly Media, spoke to a colleague of Mr. Raftery's and reached an agreement permitting the use of the phrase this time, with future uses to be negotiated if and when necessary.

Mr. O'Reilly was on vacation and has not yet responded to the furor. But Ms. Winge acknowledged that sending a formal letter to a nonprofit may have been overzealous. "What's important, and what is relevant to the events of the last couple of days, is a conversation started and it shifted the issue," she said.

For Mr. Raftery, the resolution underlines an essential point. "Because of Web 2.0 and blogging, I was able to put up a post and have this large multimedia organization apologize and turn around and say, 'You can use our trademark terms.' That's only possible because of the power blogging confers," he said. SARA IVRY

A version of this article appears in print on , on page C6 of the New York edition with the headline: Squabble Over Name Ruffles a Web Utopia. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe